The Canadian Navy

Is there a bigger joke in the history of NATO?
>1 × BAE Mk 38 25 mm (0.98 in) gun
That's it's armament.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it stabilized?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      More stable than thou

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you think it's not a lot until it's slotting your fricking driving cabin with 25mm in choppy seas

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You need to be 18 years or older to post here
      That pea shooter is never going to be shooting a bridge of any competent adversary in the age of missile volleys

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >competent adversary
        They're already in NATO. There are none.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >it's
    frick off you ESL homosexual

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >A thread in which the OP has trouble conceptualizing the concept of an arctic patrol boat calling for backup

    Do you think they'll be engaging a lot of Chinese/Russian destroyers up there hiding amongst the icebergs?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Serious surface combat is the USN/USAF's job.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But it shouldn't be.
        The arctic circle is both the property, and responsibility of Canada.
        Canada should have been armed with nuclear weapons decades ago.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It was, briefly.
          >The arctic circle is both the property, and responsibility of Canada.
          Canadians clearly don't agree

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Canadians clearly don't agree
            Canadian politicians don't agree

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And guess who elects the politicians?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And guess who elects the politicians?
                Predominantly, rich whiny buttholes living next to a river out east and rich whiny buttholes exclusively fluent in French.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This guy gets it. Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Vancouver elect. The rest of Canada gets to watch.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Chinese.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, the Arctic belongs to Greenland and Denmark.

            t. Dane

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Kek no, no it shouldn't have. Canada is not and will never be relevant. You are Canadian.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Canada should have been armed with nuclear weapons decades ago.
          Decades ago, Canada was armed with nuclear weapons.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Inventory_of_Canada's_nuclear_armaments

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "Three Ocean Navy"

          Canada still had dreams of greatness in the 1980s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even without backup, could it not theoretically operate helicopters with missiles and/or AEW radar? Could the crew not use shoulder-launched weapons (Javelin, Stinger) out to 4 to 5 km? If more firepower is needed for some inconceivable reason, there are options.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Look up the price tag on these things. A fishing boat with a 50cal does the same job

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I didnt realize you could operate ASW helicopters and break ice with a fishing boat.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >this thing isn't meant to participate in real combat
          >but apparently it needs ASW capabilities
          Any semi-competent submarine would laugh at such a fat costly and useless target before blowing it up in five ways.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >facing the russian/chinese submarine fleet
            >semi-competent
            Pick one.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You can't seriously expect these things to fight off any submarines, can you?
              >launches an ASM at you
              What now?
              It has no defense, it has barely any offense. Two fricking WW2 U-boats can beat it. One distracts the helo while the other surfaces and sinks it with the deck gun lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What now? It has no defense.
                It has two M2 Browning MGs that can shoot down incoming missiles! Witness the military prowess of a first world nation

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What now? It has no defense.
                It has two M2 Browning MGs that can shoot down incoming missiles! Witness the military prowess of a first world nation

                Doctrine over tactics. An artic patrol vessel like this spends 99% of its time patrolling peaceful shores acting as a supply vessel, assisting in repairing friendly vessels, using it's heli-pad to stage search and rescue missions etc
                This ship never goes into hostile waters, and it's literally never alone.

                TL;DR It's still a better ship than anything Russia has in the black sea.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes you fricking moron, if anyone is attacking the arctic, it’ll be fought with air power, not with arctic icebreakers and coastal support vessels.
                Name a single country other than the US with the capacity to “occupy” the arctic circle.

                >NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BUY OTHER HELICOPTERS IF AN ACTUAL SHOOTING WAR LOOKED LIKELY BECAUSE.... YOU JUST CAN'T OK!
                The inability of the thirdie mind to grasp the concept of modularity will never not be funny to me.

                >t. ~~*Irving*~~ intern

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                1 billion dollars.
                Not 1 billion dollars for the whole program, which would still be too much, no.
                1 billion dollars per ship.
                1 billion dollars per national embarrassment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What are you, poor?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. It's Canada.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                comparing it to russia isn't fair. russia responded to the svalbard and canada production of AOPVs by announcing a program to make ice resistant patrol ships but this time with more weapons right after shortly after canada, project 23550. since then canada, with a completely fricked procurement and a shitty shipyard, has launched 5 and completed 4 and russia hasn't even launched 1. they're morons

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/IxM7JU0.jpeg

        [...]
        The Norwegian icebreaker Svalbard (which this ship was designed off of, after the Canadian government purchased the blueprints for $5 million) has a pair of Mistrals for AA

        >USNS final boss fight: Yamato Super Battleship
        >Royal Canadian Navy boss fight pic related
        >Loses

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not a fair fight, the Nork boat can carry torpedoes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >calls for back up
      >gets sunk
      I can do that with a kayak and a cellphone.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You can probably also carry a helicopter and a couple RHIB boats up your giant homosexual butthole but I'd rather let this thing do the hauling.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No refunds

    >https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/royal-canadian-navy-s-new-arctic-ships-have-a-severe-flooding-problem-say-sailors/ar-BB1jpzHi

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thoroughly demoralized, I am now completely convinced that China is an unstoppable monster and we should all just abandon NATO altogether

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's a weird take.
        Considering the thread is about Canada's non-existent navy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's a joke, frickstick

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're a joke, frickstick

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As funny as the Royal Canadian navy is, its way better then Russias by a long shot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        As much as i wish it wasn't the case a single Sovremenny Class could wipe out the entire RCN

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A FRICKING OIL RIG SUPPLY VESSEL

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is a stabilised 25mm Bushmaster firing SAPHEI-T at 200 rpm and fricking up a T-90MS.
    Any problem they can't solve with that, they probably can't solve at all.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Royal Canadian Navy is trying to fix a series of problems on its new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships including anchors that aren’t effective, a refueling system that’s too heavy to use, and areas on the vessels that are leaking.
    >In addition, the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) can’t perform emergency towing as was required in the original contract and some cranes on the vessels are inoperable, National Defence confirmed to this newspaper.
    >Structural issues are also hindering the operation of Cyclone helicopters from the ships and the supplier of satellite communications systems on the vessels no longer has the security clearance to provide the navy with parts.

    >The ships only come with a one-year warranty, National Defence confirmed. That means taxpayers will be on the hook to repair a number of the deficiencies.

    Wew
    https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/leaks-ineffective-anchors-mechanical-breakdowns-among-ongoing-problems-facing-new-arctic-patrol-ships

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >one-year warranty on a "warship"
      that's nuts. Even roads have a 3-year warranty.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>The ships only come with a one-year warranty
      Wait WHAT?
      I can literally buy a USED Princess S78 yacht for -4 mil eur that comes with 1 year full warranty.
      How the frick doesnt brand new military boats have 5 year all included packages?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh look, the irving family ruining this country again.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This thing is going to do nothing but motor around the North for a couple years launching helicopters and RHIB boats, they probably had to beg for that gun

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It can't even do that kek

      >The Royal Canadian Navy is trying to fix a series of problems on its new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships including anchors that aren’t effective, a refueling system that’s too heavy to use, and areas on the vessels that are leaking.
      >In addition, the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) can’t perform emergency towing as was required in the original contract and some cranes on the vessels are inoperable, National Defence confirmed to this newspaper.
      >Structural issues are also hindering the operation of Cyclone helicopters from the ships and the supplier of satellite communications systems on the vessels no longer has the security clearance to provide the navy with parts.

      >The ships only come with a one-year warranty, National Defence confirmed. That means taxpayers will be on the hook to repair a number of the deficiencies.

      Wew
      https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/leaks-ineffective-anchors-mechanical-breakdowns-among-ongoing-problems-facing-new-arctic-patrol-ships

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    where even is this gun? i cant see it on the pic, lmao.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      here

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Please don't look up the projected cost and delivery date of our new icebreaker.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Seeing a lot of threads having a go at Canadians.
    What's this all aboot?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      China and India for seperate reasons really hate canada more than anyone else in NATO right now

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Glad you capitalized china and india and not Canada.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sue me

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Only nuclear states get capital letters. Sorry canadian cucks, or should I say, canucks?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ah, that would explain it.
        I'm not some sort of Canadaphile (half of them speak French, and the other half let them), but it does seem a little odd that these threads keep getting made.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >half of them speak French, and the other half let them
          Kek. I wish trudeau Sr passed the white papers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is a leaf flag who posts on /uhg/ that really rustles the jimmies of the vatniks. He just came back after eating a 3 month ban. They are big mad.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The royal navy is up there.
    >no land attack capabilities between their frigates and destroyers
    >no cats and arresting wires in the carriers
    >constant ship malfunctions
    >poor planning that all 6 attack submarines were in port at one time (this is huge)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you wanted to talk about Royal Navy Destroyers, you should make a thread Warriortard.
      Like the one you deleted last night. Why did you delete it again?
      LMAO
      You going to post your outlet yet?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was mass reported not deleted. You got mad that you kept asking for sources and I kept having them. Like when the 6 subs were all in port at the same time. Pretty embarrasing for you. I really ruined your fun when I posted the telegraph link bemoaning the UKs inability to strike Houthi targets. The US had to do the heavy lifting

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It was mass reported not deleted.
          No. It was your bed time. And you didn't want people laughing at your tantrum all night.
          Are you going to dance again today jester?
          kek.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.

      A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been “directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea”.

      This weekend, a British-linked container ship caught fire after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.

      One former rear admiral suggested that Britain’s inability to strike the Iran-backed Houthi movement’s bases from warships highlighted how the Navy would be unable to “go toe to toe” with Chinese and Russian warships.

      Currently, the only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. While US destroyers can fire Tomahawk guided missiles at land targets, the UK’s only options for such strikes are deploying planes or submarines, five of which were reported to be unavailable at one point in the autumn.

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/27/british-warships-lack-firepower-attacks-houthi-red-sea/

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        An absolutely damning write up. I can’t believe they would build toothless surface combatants

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        An absolutely damning write up. I can’t believe they would build toothless surface combatants

        You're in a thread about the Canadian Navy. Agreeing with yourself about the Royal Navy.
        Have you considered that people don't like you for a reason? Both here, and irl?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it’s not my fault hearing facts about the royal navy sets you off. What a strange thing to get so upset about

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >sets you off.
            I think you misjudge the effect you have on people.
            Did you know autistic people have trouble identifying different emotions?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh look ! Warriortard talking to himself again.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weird, American offshore patrol boats have exactly the same armament as Canadian offshore patrol boats. I guess the American navy is a failed enterprise.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >America coast guard ships are more heavily armed then Canadian navy ships.
      Not the dunk you think it is.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They're the same boats in the same role

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Frick off warriortard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There not at all the same boats.
          Not even the same departments.
          American coast guard v Canadian Navy.. (Canada's coast guard doesn't even have AOPS)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They're both offshore patrol boats, for the same task

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Oy vey, why am I arguing with this mutt.
              Go to /gif/ for your daily BBC thread.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No please, tell me about how Canada should be using aircraft carriers for offshore patrol or whatever

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Canada should be using spaceships :^)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the canadian coast guard has no police power so the canadian navy has to do both. the canadian coast guard is under the fisheries department and covers search and rescue, navigation assistance, stuff like that. it's not like the american coast guard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The US coast guard is a branch of the US military, the Canadian Coast Guard is a civilian maritime service. The Canadian Royal Navy’s coastal defense is the same as the US coast guard’s, since they share the same mission.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Honestly it wouldnt surprise me to learn that not giving Canuck Coasties their own firepower was because
              >We're a little concerned about too many guns being in the water, eh?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Americans really do believe they are the centre of the universe. Can't even conceive that the Canadian coast guard functions differently from the American one.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They're both offshore patrol boats, for the same task

          No please, tell me about how Canada should be using aircraft carriers for offshore patrol or whatever

          A single ship type in a single branch of the US Navy is more heavily armed than a boat from the entire Canadian Navy. Look at the US Navy's regular fleet and Canada's ships pale in comparison.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not really true, the bulk of the Canadian navy is frigates and they are very similarly armed to the US navy's frigates. Yes the Canadian Navy is tiny in comparison though and nobody disputes that, and it needs to be bigger.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The entire military needs to be bigger. Good luck finding anyone who wants to fight for a homosexual PM, this country is an absolute joke.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The Canadian navy looks weak in comparison to the largest and strongest navy in the world
            What point are you even trying to make?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Canadian Harry DeWolf AOPS
      6.5k tons
      17kn top speed
      6800 nautical miles range
      1 x 25mm gun
      2 x M2 Brownings
      >US Legend-class cutter
      4600 tons
      28kn top speed
      12000 nautical mile range
      1x57mm gun
      1x20mm phalanx
      4xM2 Brownings

      The Heritage class cutter which is a little smaller replaces the 20mm phalanx with a 25mm gun and adds 2 more BMG's
      After that you have to go all the way down to the Sentinel class cutter (weighing in at 350tons) which only has a 25mm gun and 4 BMGs

      As far as dedicated Ice Breakers go i think we are only building the Polar-2 Class ones which have 2 30mm guns and an undisclosed ability to make use of an aegis derived system to host offensive abilities.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Would also get blasted to bits by Nork harbor patrol without a armed helicopter, possibly even with depending on the helicopters weapons.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Brown hands typed this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you need to announce that you're brown?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Putting aside the compositional problems of the RCN. In a better world, all the Canucks would be specializing in is heavy OPVs like this, and navalized icebreakers, so they could function as an effective Arctic fleet for the USN (instead of the USN having its interminable b***hfest about building icebreakers themselves).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's actually genius

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No joke, why do canada need a military? who's gonna invade them?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The single Canadian in the thread gently clears his throat to catch your eye. He then gives a subtle nod to the US Border to his left.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why do canada need a military?
      in case of internal strife and for peacekeeping ops abroad.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The harry dewolf class is singularly designed to be an icebreaking helicopter pad. That is it's only purpose, and it accomplishes it.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and patrol boat needs more to stop occasional smuggler?
    if it meets real warship it will be destroyed by missile fired from far far beyond horizon...
    warships are not exactly armored these days
    - so in rare situation of close range artillery duel... high rof 25mm will shred all modern warships well enough

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It has no AA or ASW

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        in theory you could pack up couple of stingers?
        or mount warhead on one of underwater drones?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Absolutely.
          But I doubt Canada has either of those things.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        in theory you could pack up couple of stingers?
        or mount warhead on one of underwater drones?

        The Norwegian icebreaker Svalbard (which this ship was designed off of, after the Canadian government purchased the blueprints for $5 million) has a pair of Mistrals for AA

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well, outside of an original Oerlikon That's about as low-cost-last-resort option as it gets

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >spend over 20x what the Norwegians payed for the same ships because comical levels of corruption
          >can't afford any Mistrals
          many such cases

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're a joke, frickstick

            Only nuclear states get capital letters. Sorry canadian cucks, or should I say, canucks?

            [...]
            [...]
            A single ship type in a single branch of the US Navy is more heavily armed than a boat from the entire Canadian Navy. Look at the US Navy's regular fleet and Canada's ships pale in comparison.

            Why do you need to announce that you're brown?

            There, happy?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's woefully underarmed and overpriced, can't believe there are "people" who are coping about this. No, a giant target that carries some boats and maybe a helicopter on a good day is not a good investment. It needs to be smaller and carry more weapons and defenses.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm confused who's insisting on defending this shitshow. It's not leafs because we know our procurement is fricked and has been for decades. Contrarian Americans?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >literal moron cannot comprehend what an OPV is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        a low cost option for patrolling relatively uncontested waters

        a low cost options

        low cost

        low

        cost

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And i thought that our ORP Ślązak was the shitest thing that could sail

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's as low cost as the government could manage. they're dealing with an incredibly corrupt company that controls a huge amount of that province mixed with blatant riding vote buying from a completely dilapidated shipyard that needed major reconstruction. they should've ordered the design built at another yard but in the end the government decided that spending an extra 300 million per ship is worth the cost if it stays within the country. it's probably not but now canada has a modern but overpriced shipyard for making the next expensive boondoggle.
    anyone complaining about the armament is a moron because it's just an OPV with long range and the ability to go through ice. the major frick up, design wise, was not including refueling and servicing equipment for the larger helicopters and instead just having a large hangar and expecting to use smaller helicopters and that will cost money to add eventually. the other issues are primarily teething issues. the major differences from its design basis, svalbard, is its meant to handle other climates so it can patrol in warmer climates which is probably necessary as the old minesweepers, which were pretty much just used as OPVs and training, are aging out of use. the navy is the worst funded branch of a chronically underfunded military. the ship isn't meant to fight warships, it's not meant to find submarines, it's a patrol boat. the gun is there for shooting at smugglers and illegal fisherman.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Considering the fact that the bulk of China's naval vessels are literal fishing boats with mounted HMGs, that's still pretty strong.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Our govt wants everyone disarmed, including our navy it seems. :-/ Just kidding,.. sort of.

    The Kingston class coastal defense vessels have a pair of .50 cal M2's. When they commissioned MM 702 they had to pull it's old 40mm gun from the local museum and mount it on the ship. Now it's back after being declared obsolete.

    Irc several heavy guns were retrieved from museums across the nation when the RCN deployed to assist in Gulf War: Part 1 (Desert Shield/Desert Storm).

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just leave the Canadian forces alone, especially the RCN. All Canadians understand that our armed forces are vestigial bagge we carry around just to be a part of treaties and be partners with US security. Securing the Artic? Count ourselves lucky that we even got a gun on the fishing boat.

    I hope Russia or China comes sailing up there defacto taking it. We’ll go cry to the UN, go cry to the U.S., and the U.S. will just shrug because they’re out of the hegemony business. Canada is deep inside a long-term leadership crisis, there’s no hope.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and the U.S. will just shrug because they’re out of the hegemony business

      lol, what gave you that impression.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US will shrug at canada's issues because thanks to Alaska we have interests up North and Canada isn't necessarily our friend since they want to claim all the straits wide enough to have international water between them as national waterways.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >that is it is armament.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am a little curious. What is the 6,500 ton displacement going towards?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      h-helo pads and rubber boat storage take a lot of displacement, chud!

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Without sufficient radars what would be the point of VLS cells? These ships are means to 'show the flag' and be a tripwire for commercial or military ships transiting waters Canada claims. If a boat actually needs to be sunk it'll be done from the air.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tell that to most morons here without an understanding of modern military operations.
      Canada is buying 88 F35 A variants, which puts them as one of the largest fleet operators. They’re going to put auxiliary fuel tanks Lockheed had designed to extend range and make them more capable by using external pylons for more weapon storage. They’re using the same doctrine the F18s have, deter aggression by having a fast acting, powerful air deterrent that makes any attack a stupid idea.
      The arctic is never getting invaded, some morons are living in a fantasy if they think the second most inhospitable part of the world is an easy place to dominate and control. No, the NWP is not going to be controlled by Chinese or Russians because Canada doesn’t have Arleigh Burke Destroyers, that’s preposterous. One winter can destroy any army up there, especially one thousands of kilometres from it’s nearest supply line.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >everything is done from the air
        >the arctic isn't getting invaded
        >we just need a little tripwire
        Nice billion dollar "tripwire" we got there. You read that right each ship averages to 1 billion dollars.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Pic very related

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Wait what the frick, two of them cost 2.1bil? That's more than what a Burke costs

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think its CAD
            ..
            Also Irving Shipworks are a bunch of incompetent money stealing israelites that lead dept of def around by its balls

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's still about 10 to 100 times what an icebreaker with a gun should actually cost.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                hence the money grubbing big nosery. Not like gov of canada can go to anybody else to make them.
                It's like Boeing if they didnt have competition

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why not just buy from literally anyone else in the world

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because Ottawa needs to keep it's only major shipbuilder happy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I say we nationalize Irving then sell the shipyards to a competent company

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It’s literally policy that anything military related has to be Canadian manufactured unless there’s extreme circumstances.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh I didn't know the procurement of the majority of our air force was an "extreme circumstance"
                What a stupid and israeli policy. We're giving these israelites 1 billion per ship for tiny dick patrol boats, then 4 billion per ship for shitty DDs with a quarter of the capabilities of a Burke.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                For some level of perspective the US has awarded roughly 1.9bil in contracts for the completion of the 3 Polar security cutters, these are fixed cost apparently.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Program Start: 2016
                First Delivery: 2028

                But, the CG has officially hit pause, because they don't even have a final design. See you in the 2030s.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is a comparatively better design because it doesn't have a tiny dick.
                Cheaper but still too expensive

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's someone's job to make all these miniatures. They have the best job at their company.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Trudeau prob has some friends in shipbuilding biz.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes you fricking moron, if anyone is attacking the arctic, it’ll be fought with air power, not with arctic icebreakers and coastal support vessels.
          Name a single country other than the US with the capacity to “occupy” the arctic circle.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The problem with the Harry Dickwolf isn't the lack of armament, it's the lack of armament for the cost. For taxpayers to get equivalent value to a normal country buying a patrol boat they'd either need to be way cheaper than we're paying or way better armed than they'll actually be.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Such a weensy little gun. A ship built for small dick humiliation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lmao why did they even put such a tiny gun in such a prominent place where people would expect something bigger? They could've either put it in the middle like the Perrys, or not have a gun, or have a bigger gun or more guns.
      But nooo, it has to be a laughing stock lmao
      Some troony somewhere in the decision making process must've had a hand in this

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That looks like a helicopter landing pad at the back, which means it can pack a helicopter that's packing missiles that can gank any ship in the russian or chinese arsenal.
    Thanks for playing, Chang. GG no re.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Because in my video games all helicopters can fire missiles. They go "whooosh!"

      You might want to check what helicopters are carried and how they are equipped before doing what you always do.

      Hint: The helicopters on this ship can't fire stand off missiles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BUY OTHER HELICOPTERS IF AN ACTUAL SHOOTING WAR LOOKED LIKELY BECAUSE.... YOU JUST CAN'T OK!
        The inability of the thirdie mind to grasp the concept of modularity will never not be funny to me.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > Because in my video games all helicopters can fire missiles. They go "whooosh!"

          You might want to check what helicopters are carried and how they are equipped before doing what you always do.

          Hint: The helicopters on this ship can't fire stand off missiles.

          You can put stingers on a Littlebird.
          I think they can land a Littlebird on that helipad.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Finally we leafs will have something to give the Pyotr Velikiy a run for its money. Think of how much damage that 25mm chain gun will do against a battlecruiser.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If you are outgunned you win

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I know it’s not the topic of this thread, but is the large surface combatant going to be any good? They’re ordering 15 of the things.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, yes and no?
      It's hard to say. When you look at the partner nations who are already building theirs vs Canada who hasn't even started to build them.. Canada won't have them til mid 2035.. which will be too late.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Australian Navy is a bigger joke especially the subs or rather lack of subs https://youtu.be/Igqs1qDbnK4?&t=1361

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *